"Give It to Them Straight"
by John Ross Author,
Unintended Consequences http://www.shotgunnews.com/members/fred/pages/Freds8.html
The biggest mistake we make is failing to take the moral high
ground on our issue, and letting our enemies define the terms.
THEY SAY: "We'd be better off if no one had guns."
WE SAY: "You can never succeed at that, criminals will always get guns."
(FLAW: The implication here is that if you COULD succeed, it would be a
reasonable plan.)
WE SHOULD SAY: "So, you want to institute a system where the
weak and elderly are at the mercy of the strong, the lone are at
the mercy of the gang. You want to give violent criminals a
government guarantee that citizens are disarmed. Sorry, that's
unacceptable. Better that we should require every citizen to carry
a gun."
THEY SAY: "Those assault rifles have no sporting purpose. You
don't need a 30-round magazine fro hunting deer -- they're only
for killing people."
WE SAY: "I compete in DCM High Power with my AR-15. You need a
large-capacity magazine for their course of fire. My SKS is a fine deer
rifle, and I've never done anything to give my government reason not to
trust me, blah, blah, blah." (FLAW: You have implicitly conceded that it
is OK to ban any gun with no sporting use. And eventually they can
replace your sporting arms with arcade-game substitutes.)
WE SHOULD SAY: "Your claim that 'they're only for killing people'
is imprecise. A gas chamber or electric chair is designed for
killing people, and these devices obviously serve different
functions than guns. To be precise, a high capacity military-type
rifle or handgun is designed for CONFLICT. When I need to
protect myself and my freedom, I want the most reliable, most
durable, highest capacity weapon possible. The only thing
hunting and target shooting have to do with freedom is that
they're good practice."
THEY SAY: "If we pass this CCW law, it will be like the Wild West,
with shoot-outs all the time for fender-benders, in bars, etc. We
need to keep guns off the streets. If doing so saves just one life,
it will be worth it."
WE SAY: "Studies have shown blah blah blah." (flaw: You have implied
that if studies showed CCW laws equaled more heat-of-passion shooting,
CCW should be illegal.
WE SHOULD SAY: "Although no state has experienced what you
are describing, that's not important. What is important is our
freedom. If saving lives is more important that anything else, why
don't we throw out the Fifth amendment? We have the technology
to administer an annual truth serum session to the entire
population. We'd catch the criminals and mistaken arrest would
be a thing of the past. How does that sound?"
THEY SAY: "I don't see what the big deal is about a five day
waiting period."
WE SAY: "It doesn't do any good, criminals don't wait five days, it's a
waste of resources blah blah blah." (FLAW: You have implied that if
waiting periods DID reduce crime, they would be a good idea.)
WHAT WE SHOULD SAY: "How about a 24-hour cooling-off
period with a government review board before the news is
reported? Wouldn't that prevent lives from being ruined, e.g.
Richard Jewell? And the fact that this law applies to people who
ALREADY own a handgun tells me that it's not about crime
prevention, it's about harassment. Personally, I want to live in a
free society, not a 'safe' one with the government as chief nanny."
THEY SAY: "In 1776, citizens had muskets. No one ever
envisioned these deadly AK-47s. I suppose you think we
should all have atomic bombs."
WE SAY: "Uh, well, uh . . ."
WE SHOULD SAY: "Actually, the Founders discussed this very
issue - it's in the Federalist Papers. They wanted the citizens
to have the same guns as were the issue weapons of
soldiers in a modern infantry. Soldiers in 1776 were each
issued muskets, but not the large field pieces with exploding
shells. In 1996, soldiers are issued M16s, M249s, etc. but not
howitzers and atomic bombs. Furthermore, according to your
logic, the laws governing freedom of the press are only valid
for newspapers whose presses are hand-operated and use
fixed type. After all, no one in 1776 foresaw offset printing or
electricity, let alone TV and satellite transmission."
THEY SAY: "We require licenses on cars, but the powerful
NRA screams bloody murder if anyone ever suggests
licensing these weapons of mass destruction."
WE SAY: Nothing, usually, and just sit there looking dumb.
WE SHOULD SAY: "You know, driving is a luxury, where
firearms ownership is a right secured by the Constitution. But
let's put that aside for a moment. It's interesting you
compared guns and vehicles. Here in the U.S. you can AT
ANY AGE go into any state and buy as many motorcycles,
cars, or trucks of any size as you want, and you don't need to
do anything if you don't use them on public property. If you DO
want to use them on public property, you can get a license at
age 16. This license is good in all 50 states. NO waiting
periods, no background checks, nothing. If we treated guns
like cars, a fourteen-year-old could go into any state and
legally buy handguns, machine guns, cannons, whatever,
cash and carry, and shoot them all with complete legality on
private property. And at age 16 he could get a state license
good anywhere in the country to shoot these guns on public
property."
Final comment, useful with most all arguments:
YOU SAY: "You know, I'm amazed at how little you care about
your grandchildren. I would have thought they meant more to
you than anything."
THEY SAY: "Huh?"
YOU SAY: "Well, passing this proposal won't have a big
immediate effect. I mean, in the next couple of years, neither
Bill Clinton nor Newt Gingrich is going to open up internment
camps like Roosevelt did fifty-odd years ago. But think of
your worst nightmare of a political leader. Isn't it POSSIBLE
that a person like that MIGHT be in control here some time
in the next 30, 40, or 50 years, with 51% of the Congress and
51% of the Senate behind him? If that does happen, do you
REALLY what your grandchildren to have been stripped of
their final guarantee of freedom? And do you really want
them to have been stripped of it BY YOU?"
by John Ross Author,
Unintended Consequences http://www.shotgunnews.com/members/fred/pages/Freds8.html
The biggest mistake we make is failing to take the moral high
ground on our issue, and letting our enemies define the terms.
THEY SAY: "We'd be better off if no one had guns."
WE SAY: "You can never succeed at that, criminals will always get guns."
(FLAW: The implication here is that if you COULD succeed, it would be a
reasonable plan.)
WE SHOULD SAY: "So, you want to institute a system where the
weak and elderly are at the mercy of the strong, the lone are at
the mercy of the gang. You want to give violent criminals a
government guarantee that citizens are disarmed. Sorry, that's
unacceptable. Better that we should require every citizen to carry
a gun."
THEY SAY: "Those assault rifles have no sporting purpose. You
don't need a 30-round magazine fro hunting deer -- they're only
for killing people."
WE SAY: "I compete in DCM High Power with my AR-15. You need a
large-capacity magazine for their course of fire. My SKS is a fine deer
rifle, and I've never done anything to give my government reason not to
trust me, blah, blah, blah." (FLAW: You have implicitly conceded that it
is OK to ban any gun with no sporting use. And eventually they can
replace your sporting arms with arcade-game substitutes.)
WE SHOULD SAY: "Your claim that 'they're only for killing people'
is imprecise. A gas chamber or electric chair is designed for
killing people, and these devices obviously serve different
functions than guns. To be precise, a high capacity military-type
rifle or handgun is designed for CONFLICT. When I need to
protect myself and my freedom, I want the most reliable, most
durable, highest capacity weapon possible. The only thing
hunting and target shooting have to do with freedom is that
they're good practice."
THEY SAY: "If we pass this CCW law, it will be like the Wild West,
with shoot-outs all the time for fender-benders, in bars, etc. We
need to keep guns off the streets. If doing so saves just one life,
it will be worth it."
WE SAY: "Studies have shown blah blah blah." (flaw: You have implied
that if studies showed CCW laws equaled more heat-of-passion shooting,
CCW should be illegal.
WE SHOULD SAY: "Although no state has experienced what you
are describing, that's not important. What is important is our
freedom. If saving lives is more important that anything else, why
don't we throw out the Fifth amendment? We have the technology
to administer an annual truth serum session to the entire
population. We'd catch the criminals and mistaken arrest would
be a thing of the past. How does that sound?"
THEY SAY: "I don't see what the big deal is about a five day
waiting period."
WE SAY: "It doesn't do any good, criminals don't wait five days, it's a
waste of resources blah blah blah." (FLAW: You have implied that if
waiting periods DID reduce crime, they would be a good idea.)
WHAT WE SHOULD SAY: "How about a 24-hour cooling-off
period with a government review board before the news is
reported? Wouldn't that prevent lives from being ruined, e.g.
Richard Jewell? And the fact that this law applies to people who
ALREADY own a handgun tells me that it's not about crime
prevention, it's about harassment. Personally, I want to live in a
free society, not a 'safe' one with the government as chief nanny."
THEY SAY: "In 1776, citizens had muskets. No one ever
envisioned these deadly AK-47s. I suppose you think we
should all have atomic bombs."
WE SAY: "Uh, well, uh . . ."
WE SHOULD SAY: "Actually, the Founders discussed this very
issue - it's in the Federalist Papers. They wanted the citizens
to have the same guns as were the issue weapons of
soldiers in a modern infantry. Soldiers in 1776 were each
issued muskets, but not the large field pieces with exploding
shells. In 1996, soldiers are issued M16s, M249s, etc. but not
howitzers and atomic bombs. Furthermore, according to your
logic, the laws governing freedom of the press are only valid
for newspapers whose presses are hand-operated and use
fixed type. After all, no one in 1776 foresaw offset printing or
electricity, let alone TV and satellite transmission."
THEY SAY: "We require licenses on cars, but the powerful
NRA screams bloody murder if anyone ever suggests
licensing these weapons of mass destruction."
WE SAY: Nothing, usually, and just sit there looking dumb.
WE SHOULD SAY: "You know, driving is a luxury, where
firearms ownership is a right secured by the Constitution. But
let's put that aside for a moment. It's interesting you
compared guns and vehicles. Here in the U.S. you can AT
ANY AGE go into any state and buy as many motorcycles,
cars, or trucks of any size as you want, and you don't need to
do anything if you don't use them on public property. If you DO
want to use them on public property, you can get a license at
age 16. This license is good in all 50 states. NO waiting
periods, no background checks, nothing. If we treated guns
like cars, a fourteen-year-old could go into any state and
legally buy handguns, machine guns, cannons, whatever,
cash and carry, and shoot them all with complete legality on
private property. And at age 16 he could get a state license
good anywhere in the country to shoot these guns on public
property."
Final comment, useful with most all arguments:
YOU SAY: "You know, I'm amazed at how little you care about
your grandchildren. I would have thought they meant more to
you than anything."
THEY SAY: "Huh?"
YOU SAY: "Well, passing this proposal won't have a big
immediate effect. I mean, in the next couple of years, neither
Bill Clinton nor Newt Gingrich is going to open up internment
camps like Roosevelt did fifty-odd years ago. But think of
your worst nightmare of a political leader. Isn't it POSSIBLE
that a person like that MIGHT be in control here some time
in the next 30, 40, or 50 years, with 51% of the Congress and
51% of the Senate behind him? If that does happen, do you
REALLY what your grandchildren to have been stripped of
their final guarantee of freedom? And do you really want
them to have been stripped of it BY YOU?"